The St. Johns herald., 1887-12-01

CACdou uieI, d CilIel uldlldSlng OU1cer
 or general superintendent, and a
 chief law-officer, or solicitor, who
 has charge of it's legal department
 The adjustment of it's liabilities fol
 taxation comes peculiarly within
 the sphere of it's legal department
 In every county in the Territory
 through which plaintiffs railroad
 runs, its solicitor has perhaps made
 these compromise-contracts, adjust
 ing it's taxes, in not one of which
 has the authority of the solicitor to
 do so ever been questioned. Wheth-
 CT authorized or not, the plaintiff
 has invariably ratified his acts by
 paying the amounts agreed upon by
 him. In the compromise contract
 with Apache county, he got the taxes largely reduced and then agreed to pay certain amounts for
 1882 and 1883, which plaintiff paid :;
 he also agreed at the same time, and as part of the same contract, that plaintiff should pay taxes on an assessed valuation of $4,O00 per mile for five years. The Board re- duced the taxes of 1884 and 1885 to valuation of $4,O00 per mile, in accordance with that contract ]; and plaintiff paid at that rate in 1884; why should it not do so in 1885? In good conscience, this was it's own agreement.
 But again, if there had been no compromise-agreement in 1884 at all, we think the conduct of the parties in 1885 clearly shows that their minds met upon the agree ment that plaintiff should pay taxes upon it's road in Apache county, for that year, at the rate of an assessed valuation of $4,000 per mile plaintiff through it's solicitor pro- posing and earnestly recommend ing this, and the Board of Super visors acceding to the proposition, and reducing the taxes of plaintiff in accordance herewith. The so- licitor's letters written in June, 1885, to Gutterson and Tuning. seem to be susceptible of this sort of double construction. But in either view, there can be no doubt that plaintiff speaking through it's solicitor, had agreed and was anx-
 ously willing to pay the taxes in 1885 according to the $4,000 per nile valuation, and that the Board !! lcceded to the proposition. We entertain no doubt that this was a contract, to the obligations ofWhich | both parties were bound being ex- ,cutory, and fully executed and :arried out by the county in good | aith, plaintiff ought not to be per nitted to avoid performance on it's part. "Wherever the consideration # a promise is executory, there must, ex necessitate rei, have been request on the part of the person promising"
 The. point made by the learned
 ounsel for the plaintiff, that the educed assessed valuation to $4 GOO ,cr mile should have been upon property, as per the agree nent, we think not material. Our opinion is that perhaps the only the solicitor had in view, n having this clause inserted, was o avoid any question of res adju- Iicata, as to the liability to taxa ion of any of plaintiffs realty and improvements. The evidence sim ,ly shows that the taxes were re- .uced to an assessed valuation of 4,000 per mile, without showing ghether the assessed valuation, as hus reduced, was upon real or per onal property. Having saved the 'olnt by technically paying under 'rotest, it afterward became imma- erial to plaintiff-and it seems to .ave so regarded it-for if, in this there was a modification